This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

equal protection under the law. if heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right recognized by the state, conveying preferential status, than homosexual marriages must be recognized, as well.

Equal protection pertains to laws that might sanction or promote marriage, it doesn't make ssm a fundamental right. Further, whether or not marriage is a fundamental right isn't terribly relevant to your equal protection claim, as you'll see when I remove it from your argument:

"If heterosexual marriage is recognized by the state, conveying preferential status, than homosexual marriages must be recognized as well"

The fundamental right assertion was appropriate in Loving because marriages were actually being banned. There is no real SSM ban, it's simply not recognized by the government.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Taylor

Equal protection pertains to laws that might sanction or promote marriage, it doesn't make ssm a fundamental right. Further, whether or not marriage is a fundamental right isn't terribly relevant to your equal protection claim, as you'll see when I remove it from your argument:

"If heterosexual marriage is recognized by the state, conveying preferential status, than homosexual marriages must be recognized as well"

The fundamental right assertion was appropriate in Loving because marriages were actually being banned. There is no real SSM ban, it's simply not recognized by the government.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

If you can look beyond the wording used by your source, you'll see that all of this is perfectly consistent with what I said. These "bans" only pertain to legal recognition. SSM couples can marry to their hearts content -without consequence- in any of these states where there is a so-called ban. There is no fundamental right to state recognition of marriage, so their right to marry (if it exists) is not being infringed. Again, not terribly relevant to an equal protection claim.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Taylor

If you can look beyond the wording used by your source, you'll see that all of this is perfectly consistent with what I said. These "bans" only pertain to legal recognition. SSM couples can marry to their hearts content -without consequence- in any of these states where there is a so-called ban. There is no fundamental right to state recognition of marriage, so their right to marry (if it exists) is not being infringed. Again, not terribly relevant to an equal protection claim.

there is a fundamental right to marriage, and i posted a link demonstrating this right in the thread multiple times. you may choose to ignore it or to try and parse terms, but SSM is specifically banned in multiple states. i have posted a link to back this up, as well.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Helix

there is a fundamental right to marriage, and i posted a link demonstrating this right in the thread multiple times. you may choose to ignore it or to try and parse terms, but SSM is specifically banned in multiple states. i have posted a link to back this up, as well.

The problem is that the links you post don't really back up the argument you're trying to make. SSM "bans" do not prevent individuals from marrying, they prevent the government from recognizing that union. You may call that parsing terms, but that's only because you fail to understand why that might be important from a legal standpoint.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Taylor

The problem is that the links you post don't really back up the argument you're trying to make. SSM "bans" do not prevent individuals from marrying, they prevent the government from recognizing that union. You may call that parsing terms, but that's only because you fail to understand why that might be important from a legal standpoint.

the amendments ban SSM, which is the denial of a fundamental right to a group of people based solely on sexual orientation. this violates the equal protection clause.

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Helix

the amendments ban SSM, which is the denial of a fundamental right to a group of people based solely on sexual orientation. this violates the equal protection clause.

Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.

"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.

incorrect. if heterosexual marriage is recognized by the state, then homosexual marriage must be, as well. it is no different than Loving v. Virginia.